NELLAI GANESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Karuppan is a business man in Namakkal in Salem District. During 1984-85, he was constructing a theatre complex and was in need of huge funds for completing the construction. One Mannar Bhai is his close associate, and he knew very well about his financial commitment and dire need of fluid cash resources for completion of the theatre project.

(2.) Two persons by name Govindarajan (accused 2) and Easwaran (accused 3) of Salem approached Karuppan and promised to help him to complete the theatre complex by procuring the requisite financial assistance from one Subramanian (accused 1) of Madurai. They also represented that they came to know of his financial needs through his close friend Mannar Bhai so as to induce him to believe their version. Karuppan agreed to avail of the promised financial assistance. Thereafter, accused 2 and 3 met Karuppan after sometime and represented that accused I was prepared to render financial assistance, provided some collateral security was offered for the amount to be advanced. Karuppan was agreeable for such a course. Consequently, accused 2 and 3 took Karuppan to Madurai and introduced him to accused 1. Accused 1 demanded delivery of the title deeds relating to the theatre project for inspection and verification and an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/ - towards inspection charges. Karuppan complied with the demand of accused 1, who in turn appeared to have passed a receipt for the receipt of Rupees 1,85,000/-. Accused 1 after getting the signature of Karuppan in many a document prepared, requested him to meet him on intimation so that he could collect cash resources from various sources and pay the same to him. He also made arrangement for his being introduced to one Perumal (accused 5) of Tirippur staying in Hotel Tamil Nadu from whom financial accommodation is to be secured. Accordingly, accused 1 to 3 took Karuppan to Hotel Tamil Nadu. Accused 5 and one Nellai Ganesan (accused 4) were staying in a room in that Hotel. Accused 4 received accused 1 to 3 and Karuppan at the hotel and took them to the room where accused 5 was staying. Karuppan was introduced to accused 5 by accused 4. Accused 5 also inspected the documents and after a big hanky-panky, declared that the documents were in order and he could release the loan to Karuppan and directed accused 1 to contact him in a week for the money. Karuppan was sent back to Namakkal with an assurance about the loan.

(3.) On 2-8-1985, Karuppan received a telegram informing him to come on Sunday, i.e. on 4-8-1985 to meet accused 1 at Madurai. Accordingly Karuppan went to Madurai and contacted accused 1. Accused 1 directed him to go over to Trichy and stay at Lakshmi Lodge. Karuppan did so and stayed at Room No. 206 in Lakshmi Lodge. Accused 1 as promised went to Trichy and met Karuppan in his room, at Lakshmi Lodge and handed him over a trunk box stated to contain the requisite cash he was in need of and for which he had executed necessary documents. While they were in the room, Crime Branch C.I.D. Police, having a tip off; entered the room and checked the contents of the box. On opening the box. it appeared that it contained bundles of 100 rupee and 20 rupee denomination notes. On verification, the 100 rupee note bundles were found arranged in such a way that the bundle at the top had one 100 rupee currency note and the papers below the size and denomination of the currency note so as to give an appearance of the bundle containing full of currency notes. The bundles of 20 rupee notes were found to contain counterfeit currency in the sense of containing only toy notes. After due investigation, a final report had been laid before Court against accused 1 to 5 for alleged offence u/S. 120-B read with Ss. 420 and 489-B. I.P.C., which having been taken on file is pending as C.C. No. 455 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 11, Trichirapalli. Accused 4, aggrieved by the laying of such a report, has come forward with the present petition to quash the criminal proceedings against him.